newper wrote:
I think I have quoted several times that Brick is asking how McDonalds will grow, and that they won't grow because they are "likely saturated" in the United States. This is an absurd position to hold by anyone, let alone someone who drives a Dodge Stratus. Also, the statement wasn't that they are growing slower than Chic-Fil-A, it was a question on if McDonalds could grow at all given their market saturation. I never once commented on Chic-Fil-A at all.
No, but I was commenting about Chik-Fil-A and the growth rates between the two restaurants. My first post in this thread was in direct response to this: "They're still wondering how a chain that's open 6 days instead of 7 is growing faster than its restaurants are."
newper wrote:
Also, it is difficult to argue something when the other person decides what revenue streams are subject to discussion or not. I think McDonalds investing in other "brands" in the fast-food or fast-casual space would be important to this conversation, but what do I know other than I have more than a grade school education on how business works.
As I just pointed out, we are talking about McDonalds restaurants here. You seem to want to have a completely different conversation than we were having here. I mean, I guess I could have, when responding to someone about how Chik-Fil-A is growing faster than McDonalds said "Well, McDonalds could open up a fast casual Indian restaurant to compete with that" but I don't think it would have made a whole lot of sense there.
newper wrote:
Perhaps the long-term key to McDonald's success will be launching pods out to the moon and other bodies in space in a hopes to monopolize the fast food industry there. There's certainly no other way they could grow (revenue apparently -- I thought we would be talking about business in general, but OK revenue) without extra franchises.
No offense, but you aren't exactly coming off as having more than a grade school education when you make arguments like a grade schooler.